IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON JANUARY 18, 2007 Session

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON JANUARY 18, 2007 Session"

Transcription

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON JANUARY 18, 2007 Session CITY OF MEMPHIS v. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MEMPHIS and RICHARD LINDSEY Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH D. J. Alissandratos, Chancellor No. W COA-R3-CV - Filed April 25, 2007 This appeal involves the termination of a police officer s employment with the Memphis Police Department. The officer appealed his termination to the Civil Service Commission of the City of Memphis ( the Commission ). The Commission found that the City of Memphis ( the City ) had not shown that termination was reasonable, and it ordered that Officer Lindsey be reinstated with full back pay and benefits. The chancery court affirmed the Commission s decision. For the following reasons, we reverse and uphold the City s decision to terminate the officer. Tenn. R. App. P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Reversed ALAN E. HIGHERS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which DAVID R. FARMER, J., and HOLLY M. KIRBY, J., joined. Sara L. Hall, City Attorney; Carmalita Carletos-Drayton, Assistant City Attorney, for Appellant, City of Memphis Deborah Godwin, Memphis, TN, for Appellee, Richard Lindsey OPINION I. FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY Richard Brent Lindsey joined the Memphis Police Department in The incident which led to his termination occurred on February 7, While on routine patrol, Officer Lindsey would often drive by a certain dentist s office because of complaints that people were hanging out, partying, and drag racing on that street at night. At approximately 5:10 p.m., Officer Lindsey approached two vehicles parked in a cove near the dentist s office. A man and a woman Mr. Mike Sossaman and Mrs. Jolie Tennant were sitting in the front seat of one of the vehicles. Both were fully clothed and sitting on separate sides of the truck. Officer Lindsey asked Mr. Sossaman to step out of the truck,

2 patted him down, and placed him in the back of his patrol car. He requested identification from both individuals. Officer Lindsey then contacted the dispatcher to run their license plates and drivers licenses. The dispatcher s tape reveals that Officer Lindsey was informed that both of the licenses 1 were negative for warrants at 5:18 p.m. However, Officer Lindsey continued to detain Mr. Sossaman and Mrs. Tennant because he claimed that when he had asked what they were doing there, [t]heir stories didn t match. Officer Lindsey s explanations of how their stories did not match have been inconsistent. According to Mrs. Tennant and Mr. Sossaman, they both explained to Officer Lindsey that they worked together at a nearby business and had just come to the area to sit and talk after work. In a statement given during a departmental investigation, Officer Lindsey claimed that Mr. Sossaman told him that they were just there talking, but Mrs. Tennant told him that they had come to the area to have sex. However, Officer Lindsey later denied making the statement about Mrs. Tennant saying they intended to have sex. Officer Lindsey then testified that their stories didn t match because Mr. Sossaman said they were just talking, and when Mrs. Tennant said the two worked together, he might have jumped to the conclusion that she meant they were there on business. Mrs. Tennant claimed that after Officer Lindsey returned her driver s license, she asked if she was free to leave, but Officer Lindsey would not let her leave and threatened to arrest her for obstruction of justice if she did not get back in her car. She said that Officer Lindsey told her that he was waiting on his partner to arrive so that everything could get straightened out. Shortly thereafter, Mrs. Tennant s husband arrived on the scene with the couple s six-yearold daughter. Mr. Tennant began screaming at Mrs. Tennant and demanded an explanation from her and from Officer Lindsey. Officer Lindsey explained that he had found the two fully clothed and sitting on separate sides of the truck. Officer Lindsey then told the parties that they were free to leave. Mrs. Tennant claimed that Officer Lindsey told her he was releasing [her] into [her] husband s custody for [her] criminal activity, but Officer Lindsey denied making the statement. The incident concluded at approximately 5:50 p.m. At some point during the stop, Officer Lindsey had called Mrs. Tennant s husband from his 2 own private cell phone and informed him of Mrs. Tennant s location. The parties dispute how Officer Lindsey obtained Mr. Tennant s telephone number. Mrs. Tennant denied giving Officer Lindsey her telephone number and insisted that she had no idea how he obtained it, but she explained that it was listed in the telephone book under Bobby and Jolie Tennant. Officer Lindsey claimed that he asked her for a phone number of someone independent who could verify their stories, and Mrs. Tennant voluntarily provided the phone number that he had called. He explained that he called 1 Officer Lindsey was informed that Mrs. Tennant s vehicle was registered to Jolie and Robert Tennant. 2 In a statement given during the police department s investigation, Officer Lindsey stated that he had run the tags and checked for warrants, and both reports had come back negative prior to his call to Mr. Tennant. Officer Lindsey later testified that he only continued to detain the individuals because he was waiting for the dispatcher to provide their license information, and the information came back either during the phone call or after the phone call. -2-

3 the phone number and asked if the person answering knew Mrs. Tennant and knew why she would be parked in a cove at that particular location. Officer Lindsey said the person replied that he knew the location and would be right there. It is undisputed that Officer Lindsey did not inform Mrs. Tennant that the person he had called was on the way to the scene. Following the incident, Mrs. Tenant s parents came to the police station and complained about Officer Lindsey s actions, indicating that they were afraid for their daughter because of her husband s violent tendencies. Mrs. Tennant subsequently filed a complaint with the Memphis Police Department because she felt that Officer Lindsey had harassed her and endangered her life in his handling of the incident. Following an investigation, Officer Lindsey was charged with violating two Departmental Regulations: DR 135 Harassment: A member shall not abuse his/her authority or official position in order to embarrass, degrade, oppress, torment, sexually harass, discriminate predicated on gender, or persistently without due cause take action against any person to prevent that person from exercising lawful or constitutionally protected conduct and/or exercising the same.... DR 104 Personal Conduct: The conduct of each member, both on and off duty, is expected to be such that it will not reflect adversely on other members, the Department, the City of Memphis, or the law enforcement profession. This regulation applies to both the professional and private conduct of all members. It prohibits any and all conduct which is contrary to the letter and spirit of departmental policy and procedure which would reflect adversely upon the Department or its members. It includes not only all unlawful acts of members but also acts which although not unlawful in themselves, would violate the Law Enforcement code of ethics, and would degrade or bring disrespect upon the member of the Department. Deputy Chief Charles Cook conducted an administrative disciplinary hearing on the charges on November 11, Chief Cook determined that discipline was appropriate, but he referred Officer Lindsey to the psychological services division of the police department for an evaluation prior to rendering a decision on the proper discipline. Officer Lindsey was evaluated by a doctor, but Chief Cook retired before another hearing could be scheduled. Deputy Chief Larry Godwin took over the duties of Retired Chief Cook and held another hearing on February 2, After Officer Lindsey explained the details of the incident, Chief Godwin pointed out various ways that he had mishandled the situation. Chief Godwin then inquired about Officer Lindsey s previous encounters at that same location, and Officer Lindsey admitted that he had called another man s wife to the scene on a different occasion and that the man had been released to the custody of his wife when she arrived. Although Officer Lindsey s personnel investigative file contained information on the similar incident, Officer Lindsey had never been formally charged or confronted about the previous incident. However, Chief Godwin noted that Officer Lindsey did have several sustained -3-

4 3 administrative charges, including previous violations of the Personal Conduct regulation. Chief Godwin determined that the current charges against Officer Lindsey should be sustained, with a three-day suspension imposed for the Harassment charge and immediate termination for the Personal Conduct charge. Specifically, the hearing summary prepared by Chief Godwin contains the following statements: It is the opinion of this hearing officer and after careful review of all documentation contained in the investigative file Case #I that the charges of DR-135, Harassment and DR-104, Personal Conduct are sustained. Officer Lindsey had every right to investigate for what appeared to be suspicious persons in an area where numerous complaints, break-ins and suspicious activity, have occurred. However, once he identified the subjects and found them not to be engaged in any criminal activity, their identify verified, warrant checks through Station B verified negative, and by his own admission that he did not check any buildings for break-ins[,] neither party posed a threat to him, then they should have been released. Officer Lindsey took it upon himself to obtain phone numbers and to notify the spouse of one of the subjects and held them until the spouse arrived on the scene thus placing him and all parties involved in a very hostile situation. This is the second such situation almost identical in nature where a spouse was called to the scene where a couple was sitting in this cove. This reckless behavior has placed the lives of seven individuals in danger including you and potentially disrupted one marriage. Your actions have placed you in violation of DR-135 Harassment and DR-104, Personal Conduct and I am therefore ordering a three-day suspension for DR-135, Harassment and termination for DR-104, Personal Conduct. This discipline is based upon this officer s actions and conduct in this incident and the information contained in the investigative file, as well as, his past disciplinary record, which includes several sustained administrative charges including Harassment, and Personal Conduct. Officer Lindsey appealed his termination to the Civil Service Commission of the City of Memphis. On October 1, 2004, the Commission heard testimony from the dentist whose office was nearby, from Mrs. Tennant, Mr. Sossaman, Chief Godwin, Retired Chief Cook, Officer Lindsey s 3 According to Chief Godwin s testimony, when determining the appropriate level of discipline, the officer s investigative file is considered including his disciplinary resume. -4-

5 union representative, a Memphis Police Department counselor, another officer who attended the hearings, another police chief, and Officer Lindsey. Officer Lindsey maintained that he had asked Mrs. Tennant for the phone number of someone who could verify her story, and he did not intend to call her husband. Officer Lindsey s union representative testified that it was not unusual for an officer to call a third party to verify someone s identity. Chief Godwin testified that there was no reason to contact someone s home unless one was dealing with a child and contacted his or her parents. He also testified that there was no reason to contact a spouse. In addition, Chief Godwin testified that once Officer Lindsey had determined that there were no warrants against these individuals, they should have been released, and he should not have detained them further so that he could check or verify their stories. Following the October 2004 hearing before the Civil Service Commission, one of the three commissioners recused himself from the Commission because of a conflict of interest. In February 2005, counsel for the City of Memphis and for Officer Lindsey agreed that the matter could be decided by the remaining two commissioners. A consent order to accept the decision of the two commissioners was entered on April 15, On August 26, 2005, the Civil Service Commission issued its decision reversing the City s action and reinstating Officer Lindsey with full back pay and benefits. The Commission specifically found that the termination of Officer Lindsey was not reasonable in light of the circumstances. The City filed a petition for writ of certiorari and supersedeas in Shelby County Chancery Court, which the chancellor denied by order on May 2, The City filed its notice of appeal to this Court on June 1, II. ISSUE PRESENTED We restate the issue presented by the parties as whether the trial court erred when it affirmed the Commission s finding that the City failed to show a reasonable basis for terminating the 4 employment of Officer Lindsey under DR-104. For the following reasons, we reverse the decision of the trial court and uphold the determination of the City of Memphis to terminate Officer Lindsey s employment with the Memphis Police Department. III. STANDARD OF REVIEW Section 246 of the Memphis City Charter provides that [t]he City may terminate, suspend, or demote an employee for just cause.... Just cause shall exist when the employer had a reasonable basis for the action taken. Section 248 of the Charter states that upon appeal to the Civil Service Commission, [t]he burden of proof required to sustain the action of the City shall be by a preponderance of the evidence. If, after a presentation of the proof, the commission finds that there exists a reasonable basis for the disciplinary action taken, the action of the City shall be sustained. 4 Officer Lindsey did not appeal the suspension for violating DR-135 Harassment, and that issue is not before this Court. -5-

6 Therefore, the Commission was required to affirm the City s decision if it had proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that it had a reasonable basis for terminating Officer Lindsey. Judicial review of decisions of civil service commissions is conducted in conformity with the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, as set forth in Tenn. Code Ann City of Memphis v. Civil Serv. Comm n, No. W SC-R11-CV, slip op. at 5-6 (Tenn. 2007) (citing Tenn. Code Ann (Supp. 2003)). Section (h) authorizes this Court to reverse or modify the Commission s decision if its findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions were: (1) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) In excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (3) Made upon unlawful procedure; (4) Arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion; or (5)(A) Unsupported by evidence that is both substantial and material in the light of the entire record. (B) In determining the substantiality of evidence, the court shall take into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight, but the court shall not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. Tenn. Code Ann (h) (2005). Of these grounds, only the last two relate to the sufficiency of the evidence. City of Memphis, slip op. at 6. In its broadest sense, the [arbitrary or capricious] standard requires the court to determine whether the administrative agency has made a clear error in judgment. An arbitrary [or capricious] decision is one that is not based on any course of reasoning or exercise of judgment, or one that disregards the facts or circumstances of the case without some basis that would lead a reasonable person to reach the same conclusion. Likewise, a reviewing court should not apply [the] substantial and material evidence test mechanically. Instead, the court should review the record carefully to determine whether the administrative agency s decision is supported by such relevant evidence as a rational mind might accept to support a rational conclusion.... The evidence will be sufficient if it furnishes a reasonably sound factual basis for the decision being reviewed. Id. at 6-7 (quoting Jackson Mobilphone Co., Inc. v. Tennessee Pub. Serv. Comm n, 876 S.W.2d 106, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993)). A decision that is unsupported by substantial and material evidence qualifies as arbitrary and capricious, but a decision with adequate evidentiary support may also be arbitrary and capricious. Id. at 6. As such, our review is confined to determining whether the -6-

7 Commission s finding (that the City failed to show that termination was reasonable) had insufficient evidentiary support or, in the alternative, was arbitrary and capricious. Id. IV. DISCUSSION A. The City s Reasoning for Termination In determining the substantiality of the evidence, the hearing officer s initial order is a relevant and important part of the administrative record to be considered. McEwen v. Tenn. Dep t of Safety, 173 S.W.3d 815, 824 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005). The hearing summary prepared by Chief Godwin states that when Officer Lindsey received the negative warrant information on the suspects, they should have been released. However, Officer Lindsey called the female s spouse to the scene without cause. Chief Godwin found that Officer Lindsey took it upon himself to obtain phone numbers and to notify the spouse of one of the subjects and held them until the spouse arrived on the scene thus placing him and all parties involved in a very hostile situation. The summary also mentions a memo prepared by Officer Lindsey s superior officer, which stated that when the superior officer advised Officer Lindsey about how he should have handled the situation, Officer Lindsey responded in a very sarcastic way. Chief Godwin noted that [p]olice officers are frequently required to make decisions affecting human life and liberty in difficult situations and that [l]aw enforcement requires an officer to have the stamina, intelligence, moral courage and emotional stability necessary to fairly and impartially deal with human beings in the many complicated and potentially explosive situations, which he or she encounters. The summary then mentions that Officer Lindsey was asked about another incident that had occurred at that location, and Officer Lindsey stated that he had contacted another man s spouse, that she had showed up at the scene, and that he was released to the custody of his wife.... Chief Godwin concluded that, based upon this incident and the information in Officer Lindsey s investigative file, he should be terminated for violating DR-104 Personal Conduct. At the hearing before the Commission, Officer Lindsey s card file was introduced that revealed that he had ten previously sustained violations of departmental policy. (Ex.4). Several performance reports were also introduced which commended his handling of certain incidents and generally rated Officer Lindsey s performance as average. The reports also reflected, however, that Officer Lindsey had been suspended from duty twice in 2003 for violations unrelated to the incident with Mrs. Tennant. B. The Commission s Reasoning for Reinstatement -7-

8 The Commission noted in its decision that when Officer Lindsey called Mr. Tennant from the scene, [a]pparently, at that time, he did not know that the telephone number he called was that of the spouse of the female. The Commission further found that: The administrators [Chief Godwin] concluded that Officer Lindsey s behavior had placed the lives of several individuals in danger, including that of Officer Lindsey, and that Officer Lindsey had intentionally disrupted the marriage of the subject female and her spouse. However, no further evidence was presented to indicate any adverse consequences to any of the parties as a result of the actions of Officer Lindsey on the date in question.... After extensive review of the evidence, the consideration of arguments of the counsel, and after full deliberation, the remaining Commissioners of the hearing panel unanimously agreed that the termination of Officer Lindsey was not reasonable in light of the circumstances. In sum, the Commission apparently concluded that the City failed to prove that terminating Officer Lindsey for violation of DR-104 was reasonable since Officer Lindsey may not have intended to call the spouse to the scene. After a thorough review of the record, we find no reasonably sound factual basis for the Commission s decision and conclude that it is erroneous. Even the substantial and material evidence standard requires a searching and careful inquiry that subjects the commission s decision to close scrutiny, and a court s deference to a commission s expertise is no excuse for judicial inertia. Freedom Broadcasting of TN, Inc. v. Tenn. Dep t of Revenue, 83 S.W.3d 776, 781 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002); Willamette Indus., Inc. v. Tenn. Assessment Appeals Comm n, 11 S.W.3d 142, 147 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999). Again, DR-104 reads as follows: The conduct of each member, both on and off duty, is expected to be such that it will not reflect adversely on other members, the Department, the City of Memphis, or the law enforcement profession. This regulation applies to both the professional and private conduct of all members. It prohibits any and all conduct which is contrary to the letter and spirit of departmental policy and procedure which would reflect adversely upon the Department or its members. It includes not only all unlawful acts of members but also acts which although not unlawful in themselves, would violate the Law Enforcement code of ethics, and would degrade or bring disrespect upon the member of the Department. -8-

9 (emphasis added). It is clear that DR-104 seeks to address the appearance of conduct and the public perception of the police department and its members. Regardless of whether Officer Lindsey intentionally or accidentally contacted Mrs. Tennant s spouse, specifically, the result is the same. Chief Godwin testified that it was improper to call someone to verify the story of an adult. As our Supreme Court recently noted in City of Memphis, even if [the officer s] intentions were honorable, his conduct was not. There is simply no substantial and material evidence which contradicts his violation of a departmental rule [DR-104]. Slip op. at 7. In this case, putting Officer Lindsey s questionable intentions aside, the City clearly demonstrated that his misconduct disrupted a marriage and placed several individuals in a very hostile and dangerous situation. These actions certainly reflected adversely on the police department and its members. The City also established that Officer Lindsey had many other sustained violations of departmental policy. In our view, a reasonable person would necessarily conclude that the City had demonstrated a reasonable basis for terminating Officer Lindsey. Substantial and material evidence does not support the Commission s decision to order reinstatement. C. Other Arguments Officer Lindsey presents several other arguments to this Court in support of his contention that he should be reinstated. First, he describes an incident involving another officer who stopped an employee driving a company van, decided to arrest the employee, and called the employer to inform him of the arrest so that the van could be picked up rather than towed. Officer Lindsey claims that since the other officer was only suspended and sent to remedial training, he has been subjected to disparate treatment. We find that the present case is clearly distinguishable from the other incident and that Officer Lindsey s argument is without merit. Next, Officer Lindsey claims that the Commission was required to issue its decision within 90 days of his hearing pursuant to T.C.A The statute specifically provides: (g) A final order... shall be rendered in writing within ninety (90) days after conclusion of the hearing or after submission of proposed findings in accordance with subsection (f) unless such period is waived or extended with the written consent of all parties or for good cause shown. Tenn. Code Ann (g) (2005). However, courts have previously held that this statute is directory rather than mandatory, especially in cases where no prejudice has been shown, and that violation of the 90-day rule does not nullify the resulting order. Garrett v. State, Dep t of Safety, 717 S.W.2d 290, 291 (Tenn. 1986); Daley v. Univ. of Tenn. at Memphis, 880 S.W.2d 693, 695 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). Because Officer Lindsey has not shown that he was prejudiced by the delay, and because the Commission s decision appears to have been delayed because one of the commissioners recused himself after the hearing, we find no error by the Commission. -9-

10 Officer Lindsey also argues that the two charges brought against him (Harassment and Personal Conduct) were duplicative and based upon the same set of facts. He made the same argument before the Commission, but it apparently did not accept his theory and proceeded with the hearing. In support of his position, Officer Lindsey cites a prior decision of the Civil Service Commission dismissing a DR-104 Personal Conduct charge when a DR-108 Truthfulness violation was also charged and it more specifically addressed an officer s single act of untruthfulness. We have encountered other cases, however, in which DR-104 charges have been sustained along with other DR violations based upon different facts arising out of a single incident. See, e.g., Pruitt v. City of Memphis, No. W COA-R3-CV, slip op. at 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 24, 2005). In the case at bar, Chief Godwin testified that there were several issues involved in Officer Lindsey s mishandling of the incident which gave rise to the charges, such as his failure to release the individuals upon learning that there were no warrants or possible criminal charges against them. (Vol.3, p.71). Because DR-104, by its terms, encompasses any and all conduct which is contrary to the letter and spirit of departmental policy and procedure, we find no error in its application to the facts of this case. Finally, Officer Lindsey contends that he was subjected to double jeopardy because two disciplinary hearings were held by the Memphis Police Department. However, our review of the record reveals that after the first hearing, Officer Lindsey s discipline was merely being postponed pending his psychological evaluation. The first hearing officer testified that Officer Lindsey was expected to return for another hearing during which his discipline would be determined. The fact that the first hearing officer resigned and a different hearing officer concluded the matter does not mean that Officer Lindsey was somehow not subject to discipline. Nor does it entitle him to be disciplined in the way that he assumed that the first hearing officer might decide. This issue is also without merit. V. CONCLUSION The Commission s determination that the City failed to show a reasonable basis for terminating Officer Lindsey is not supported by substantial and material evidence in this case. Because we find that the Commission erred by reinstating Officer Lindsey, we reverse the decision of the chancery court and uphold the decision of the City of Memphis terminating Officer Lindsey s employment with the Memphis Police Department. Costs of this appeal are taxed to Appellee, Richard Lindsey, for which execution may issue if necessary. ALAN E. HIGHERS, JUDGE -10-

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 23, 2005 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 23, 2005 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 23, 2005 Session CITY OF MEMPHIS, a Municipal Corporation v. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MEMPHIS, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Chancery

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 22, 2011 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 22, 2011 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON March 22, 2011 Session CITY OF MEMPHIS v. CLIFTON CATTRON, JR., and CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON CITY OF MEMPHIS, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellee, ) Shelby Chancery No. 102642 ) vs. ) ) CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF ) Appeal No. 02A01-9607-CH-00158

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON July 21, 2011 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON July 21, 2011 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON July 21, 2011 Session PAUL PITTMAN v. CITY OF MEMPHIS Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-10-0974-3 Kenny W. Armstrong, Chancellor

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 16, 2013

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 16, 2013 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs April 16, 2013 RUBY BLACKMON v. EATON ELECTRICAL, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-11-0673-2 Arnold

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 17, 2005 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 17, 2005 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE February 17, 2005 Session CITY OF MORRISTOWN v. REBECCA A. LONG Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamblen County No. 2003-64 Ben K. Wexler, Chancellor

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON On-Brief August 4, 2006

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON On-Brief August 4, 2006 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON On-Brief August 4, 2006 ALVIN KING v. SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT CIVIL SERVICE MERIT BOARD A Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-04-0355-2

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 9, 2001 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 9, 2001 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 9, 2001 Session LARRY ROBBINS v. CITY OF JOHNSON CITY, TENNESSEE Appeal from the Chancery Court for Washington County No. 33154 Jean A. Stanley, Judge

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 4, 2003 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 4, 2003 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 4, 2003 Session LISA D. HUCKABEE v. MICHAEL E. MAGILL, COMMISSIONER OF THE TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, ET AL. Appeal

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON. JAMES P. MITCHELL, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Madison Chancery No.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON. JAMES P. MITCHELL, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Madison Chancery No. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE WESTERN SECTION AT JACKSON JAMES P. MITCHELL, ) ) Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Madison Chancery No. 48842 ) VS. JAMES DAVENPORT, Commissioner ) of the Department of Employment

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 8, 2004 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 8, 2004 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE December 8, 2004 Session JAMES EDWARD DUNN v. KNOX COUNTY SHERIFF S DEPARTMENT MERIT SYSTEM COUNCIL, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 10, 2009 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 10, 2009 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE July 10, 2009 Session CHRIS GARNER v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 13, 2013 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 13, 2013 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 13, 2013 Session CITY OF MEMPHIS v. KAREN LESLEY and CITY OF MEMPHIS CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Submitted on Briefs July 20, 2010

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Submitted on Briefs July 20, 2010 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Submitted on Briefs July 20, 2010 GEORGE CAMPBELL, JR. v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; REUBEN HODGE, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER; CAROLYN JORDAN; CHERRY

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 23, 2018 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 23, 2018 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 23, 2018 Session 08/27/2018 HAMPTON CRANE SERVICE, INC. v. BURNS PHILLIPS, COMMISSIONER OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, ET

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASSIGNED TO WESTERN SECTION ON BRIEFS MARCH 30, 2007

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASSIGNED TO WESTERN SECTION ON BRIEFS MARCH 30, 2007 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASSIGNED TO WESTERN SECTION ON BRIEFS MARCH 30, 2007 WILLIAM W. YORK v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs February 2, 2010 BILLY HARRIS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 01-02675 Carolyn Wade

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned On Brief November 29, 2006

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned On Brief November 29, 2006 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned On Brief November 29, 2006 CHARLES JACKSON v. SHELBY COUNTY CIVIL SERVICE MERIT BOARD, et al. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 22, 2005 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 22, 2005 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 22, 2005 Session NORMA JEAN FORD GRIFFIN v. DONNA LESTER and the UNKNOWN HEIRS of ARTHUR JEAN HENDERSON (DECEASED) An Appeal from the Chancery Court

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 21, 2005

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 21, 2005 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs November 21, 2005 PEGGY ARMSTRONG v. METROPOLITAN NASHVILLE HOSPITAL AUTHORITY Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS APRIL 21, 2011

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS APRIL 21, 2011 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS APRIL 21, 2011 LARRY HENDRICKS v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF PROBATION & PAROLE Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE June 9, 2009 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE June 9, 2009 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE June 9, 2009 Session WIRELESS PROPERTIES, LLC, v. THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE CITY OF CHATTANOOGA, ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamilton County

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 6, 2009 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 6, 2009 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 6, 2009 Session DOJI, INC. D/B/A DEMOS' STEAK AND SPAGHETTI HOUSE v. JAMES G. NEELEY, COMMISSIONER, TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & WORKFORCE

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 29, 2006 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 29, 2006 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON November 29, 2006 Session DEREK DAVIS v. SHELBY COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT An Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-03-0295-II Arnold

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON AUGUST 2000 Session

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON AUGUST 2000 Session IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON AUGUST 2000 Session CARL ROSS v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. P-19898 Joe Brown, Judge No. W1999-01455-CCA-R3-PC

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 26, 2003

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 26, 2003 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 26, 2003 RICHARD HUGHEY v. THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 20, 2001

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 20, 2001 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs March 20, 2001 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JASHUA SHANNON SIDES Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County Nos. 225250

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned On Briefs May 29, 2007

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned On Briefs May 29, 2007 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned On Briefs May 29, 2007 EDDIE GORDON v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 05-128-I

More information

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, Department/, Petitioner, vs. CSGP 06-52VINCENT TUROCY, Grievant/, Respondent

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY, Department/, Petitioner, vs. CSGP 06-52VINCENT TUROCY, Grievant/, Respondent University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 4-19-2007 TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned On Briefs November 24, 2009

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned On Briefs November 24, 2009 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned On Briefs November 24, 2009 IN RE: ADOPTION OF N.A.H., a minor (d/o/b 06/06/03) Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. CH-08-1670

More information

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CW 1386 BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT VERSUS CHARLES OMALLEY

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CW 1386 BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT VERSUS CHARLES OMALLEY STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT 2010 CW 1386 BATON ROUGE POLICE DEPARTMENT VERSUS CHARLES OMALLEY On Supervisory Writs to the 19th Judicial District Court Parish of East Baton Rouge Louisiana

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE MARCH 5, 2001 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE MARCH 5, 2001 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE MARCH 5, 2001 Session ROBIN M. BERRY, ET AL. v. WILSON COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Wilson County No.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 16, 2016 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 16, 2016 Session 01/20/2017 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 16, 2016 Session CONCORD ENTERPRISES OF KNOXVILLE, INC. v. COMMISSIONER OF TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR & WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT Appeal

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Submitted on Briefs February 8, 2008

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Submitted on Briefs February 8, 2008 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Submitted on Briefs February 8, 2008 DANNY RAY MEEKS v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hickman County No. 06-393C

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 25, 2011 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 25, 2011 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 25, 2011 Session JANICE BROOKS, ET AL. v. RIVERTOWN ON THE ISLAND HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION, INC. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 9, 2005 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 9, 2005 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 9, 2005 Session AMERICAN HERITAGE APARTMENTS, INC. v. BILL BENNETT, TAX ASSESSOR OF HAMILTON COUNTY, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 11, 2005 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 11, 2005 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 11, 2005 Session LOUIS HUDSON ROBERTS v. MARY ELIZABETH TODD ROBERTS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 01D-1275 Muriel Robinson,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 22, 2005 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 22, 2005 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON August 22, 2005 Session VIRGINIA STARR SEGAL v. UNITED AMERICAN BANK, DAVID CHARLES SEGAL, MARTIN GRUSIN, and RHONDA DILEONARDO An Appeal from the Chancery

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned to the Western Section Court of Appeals on Briefs March 30, 2007

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned to the Western Section Court of Appeals on Briefs March 30, 2007 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned to the Western Section Court of Appeals on Briefs March 30, 2007 STATE EX REL. PATSY M. YOUNG v. DANNY FISH An Appeal from the Circuit Court for

More information

Administrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, Table of Contents

Administrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, Table of Contents Administrative Rules for the Office of Professional Regulation Effective date: February 1, 2003 Table of Contents PART I Administrative Rules for Procedures for Preliminary Sunrise Review Assessments Part

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 5, 2011 Session

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 5, 2011 Session IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 5, 2011 Session ARTIS WHITEHEAD v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 03-04835 James C. Beasley,

More information

Before STEWART, GASKINS and PEATROSS, JJ.

Before STEWART, GASKINS and PEATROSS, JJ. Judgment rendered November 2, 2011. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, LSA-CCP. No. 46,517-CA No. 46,518-CA (Consolidated Cases) COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 4, 2004

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 4, 2004 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 4, 2004 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. WILLIAM J. PARKER, JR. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Warren County No. M-7661

More information

Cullum, Paulette v. K-Mac Holding Corp d/b/a Taco Bell

Cullum, Paulette v. K-Mac Holding Corp d/b/a Taco Bell University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Court of Workers' Compensation Claims and Workers' Compensation Appeals Board Law 12-23-2014 Cullum, Paulette

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS MAY 24, 2007

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS MAY 24, 2007 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS MAY 24, 2007 JOSHUA L. CARTER v. GEORGE LITTLE, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Lake County No. 5315 J. Steven Stafford,

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 23, 2002 Session

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 23, 2002 Session IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 23, 2002 Session STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHARLES EUGENE JONES Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court of Sullivan County No. S44,406 Phyllis

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 15, 2002 Session

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 15, 2002 Session IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 15, 2002 Session RICHARD BROWN v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Robertson County No. 8167 James E. Walton,

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 6, 2018 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 6, 2018 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE September 6, 2018 Session 12/04/2018 THOMAS F. MABRY v. BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Knox County No. 193376-1

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE FILED ALEXANDER JACKSON BULLARD, March 3, 1998 ) C/A N0. 03A01-9705-CH-00193 ) Cecil Crowson, Jr. Plaintiff-Appellee, ) HAMILTON CHANCERY Appellate Court

More information

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY

PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE Table of Contents Section 1.0 Objective Page 1 Section 2.0 Coverage of Personnel Page 1 Section 3.0 Definition of a Grievance

More information

NO CA Brenda Franklin v. Cornelius Turner MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

NO CA Brenda Franklin v. Cornelius Turner MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION E-Filed Document Apr 28 2016 19:23:00 2014-CA-01006-COA Pages: 11 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 2014 CA-01006-Brenda Franklin v. Cornelius Turner BRENDA FRANKLIN Appellant/Plaintiff

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON December 9, 2004 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON December 9, 2004 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT JACKSON December 9, 2004 Session LOUCINDRA TAYLOR V. AMERICAN PROTECTION INSURANCE CO., ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Chancery

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON OCTOBER 14, 2010 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON OCTOBER 14, 2010 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON OCTOBER 14, 2010 Session SHIRLEY NICHOLSON v. LESTER HUBBARD REALTORS, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-005422-04 Kay

More information

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 3 May On writ of certiorari permitting review of judgment entered 15

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 3 May On writ of certiorari permitting review of judgment entered 15 An unpublished opinion of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3)

More information

APPENDIX C CHAPTER 2: ETHICS PROCEDURES

APPENDIX C CHAPTER 2: ETHICS PROCEDURES APPENDIX C CHAPTER 2: ETHICS PROCEDURES These Ethics Procedures describe the steps for handling questions of a neutral s fitness that involve the neutral s character or alleged unethical conduct. Thus,

More information

Follow this and additional works at:

Follow this and additional works at: University of Tennessee, Knoxville Trace: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Tennessee Department of State, Opinions from the Administrative Procedures Division Law 11-4-2009, DEPARTMENT OF SAFETY

More information

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-05-00264-CV Dalia Martinez, Appellant v. Daughters of Charity Health Services d/b/a Seton Medical Center, Appellee FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS

More information

California Association of School Counselors Ethics Committee Policies and Procedures Adopted November 12, 2007 Revised August 3, 2008

California Association of School Counselors Ethics Committee Policies and Procedures Adopted November 12, 2007 Revised August 3, 2008 California Association of School Counselors Ethics Committee Policies and Procedures Adopted November 12, 2007 Revised August 3, 2008 I. Ethics Committee Section A: General 1. The California Association

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON May 2000 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON May 2000 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON May 2000 Session ALVIN O. HERRING, JR. v. INTERSTATE HOTELS, INC. d/b/a MEMPHIS MARRIOTT Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 70025 T.D. John

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 26, 2018

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 26, 2018 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 26, 2018 08/01/2018 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. JAMES T. HUTCHINS Appeal from the Criminal Court for Hamilton County No. 282821

More information

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE 7365 DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE 7365 DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE 7365 DESERT COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT DISCIPLINE AND DISMISSAL CLASSIFIED EMPLOYEES Grounds for Discipline Disciplinary process is defined within the Collective Bargaining Agreement

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 7, 2005

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 7, 2005 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 7, 2005 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MARCUS CARTER Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. 03-04521 Arthur

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs August 15, 2006

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs August 15, 2006 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs August 15, 2006 JAMES MATTHEW GRAY v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2002-D-2051

More information

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 October 2012

NO. COA NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 16 October 2012 NO. COA11-1501 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 16 October 2012 MONTY S. POARCH, Petitioner, v. Wake County No. 08 CVS 3861 N.C. DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL & PUBLIC SAFETY, N.C. HIGHWAY PATROL,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 20, 2004 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 20, 2004 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 20, 2004 Session BRENDA J. SNEED v. THOMAS G. STOVALL, M.D., ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. 57955 T.D. Karen R.

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE NOVEMBER 1997 SESSION

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE NOVEMBER 1997 SESSION IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE NOVEMBER 1997 SESSION FILED December 23, 1997 WILLIE JOSEPH LAGANO, Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Clerk Appellant, No. 01C01-9701-CC-00009

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 12, 2005

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 12, 2005 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs July 12, 2005 JAMES RIMMER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County No. P-27299 W. Otis Higgs,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS OCTOBER 21, 2003

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS OCTOBER 21, 2003 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS OCTOBER 21, 2003 PAUL IVY v. ALTON HESSON, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lauderdale County No. 5231 Joseph H. Walker,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON. ADVANTA BUSINESS SERVICES CORPORATION, v. RAYMOND McPHERSON, ET AL.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON. ADVANTA BUSINESS SERVICES CORPORATION, v. RAYMOND McPHERSON, ET AL. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ADVANTA BUSINESS SERVICES CORPORATION, v. RAYMOND McPHERSON, ET AL. Interlocutory Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. 109746-1 Walter L.

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 21, 2005

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 21, 2005 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 21, 2005 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. LAJUN M. COLE, SR. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. 40400207

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 24, 2001 Session

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 24, 2001 Session IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE April 24, 2001 Session RANDY D. VOWELL v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Post-Conviction Appeal from the Criminal Court for Anderson County No. 99CR0367 James

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 23, 2017 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 23, 2017 Session 03/14/2017 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 23, 2017 Session XINGKUI GUO V. WOODS & WOODS, PP Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County No. 15C3765 Hamilton V. Gayden,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON September 21, 2005 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON September 21, 2005 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON September 21, 2005 Session ANDRE MATTHEWS v. SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT A Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Shelby County No. 110180-2 The Honorable

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS JANUARY 14, 2009

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS JANUARY 14, 2009 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON ASSIGNED ON BRIEFS JANUARY 14, 2009 ANTWONE J. TERRY v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Lauderdale County

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 17, 2004 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 17, 2004 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE February 17, 2004 Session GLORIA WINDSOR v. DEKALB COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for DeKalb County No. 01-154 Vernon

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs May 17, 2017, at Knoxville

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs May 17, 2017, at Knoxville IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs May 17, 2017, at Knoxville 06/20/2017 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. CHRISTOPHER COLLIER Appeal from the Criminal Court for Shelby County

More information

SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF REGENTS. Policy Manual

SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF REGENTS. Policy Manual SOUTH DAKOTA BOARD OF REGENTS Policy Manual SUBJECT: NUMBER: 1. The South Dakota Board of Regents proscribes academic misconduct by its employees at all times and in all circumstances. The following regulations

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 4, 2005 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 4, 2005 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 4, 2005 Session YVONNE N. ROBERTSON v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF SOCIAL WORKER CERTIFICATION AND LICENSURE, ET AL. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE November 9, 2011 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE November 9, 2011 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE November 9, 2011 Session PAULETTA C. CRAWFORD, ET AL. v. EUGENE KAVANAUGH, M.D. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hamblem County No. 10CV257 Thomas J.

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE November 15, 2010 Session

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE November 15, 2010 Session IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE SPECIAL WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS PANEL AT NASHVILLE November 15, 2010 Session MICHAEL DEVEREUX v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC. Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE. ) Appellee, ) FILED: February 14, 2000 ) v. ) MAURY COUNTY ) ) Appellant. ) NO. M SC-R11-CD

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE. ) Appellee, ) FILED: February 14, 2000 ) v. ) MAURY COUNTY ) ) Appellant. ) NO. M SC-R11-CD IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE FILED February 14, 2000 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) FOR PUBLICATION Appellee, ) FILED: February 14, 2000 ) v. ) MAURY

More information

RENO POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDER

RENO POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDER RENO POLICE DEPARTMENT GENERAL ORDER This directive is for internal use only and does not enlarge this department's, governmental entity's and/or any of this department's employees' civil or criminal liability

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE OCTOBER 2, 2000 Session

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE OCTOBER 2, 2000 Session IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE OCTOBER 2, 2000 Session CHERYL N. BUCKNER, ET AL. v. DAVID F. HASSELL, M.D., ET AL. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Knox County No. 1-141-98 Dale C.

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 28, 2013

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 28, 2013 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs June 28, 2013 RODNEY V. JOHNSON v. TRANE U.S. INC., ET AL. Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-000880-09 Gina

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON. STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TYI ANTHONY STEFFENS, Defendant-Appellant.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON. STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TYI ANTHONY STEFFENS, Defendant-Appellant. FILED: June, 01 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON STATE OF OREGON, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. TYI ANTHONY STEFFENS, Defendant-Appellant. Multnomah County Circuit Court 01 A1 David F. Rees, Judge.

More information

IN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED September 12, CR DISTRICT II STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, JOANNE SEKULA,

IN COURT OF APPEALS. DECISION DATED AND FILED September 12, CR DISTRICT II STATE OF WISCONSIN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, JOANNE SEKULA, COURT OF APPEALS DECISION DATED AND FILED September 12, 2001 Cornelia G. Clark Clerk of Court of Appeals NOTICE This opinion is subject to further editing. If published, the official version will appear

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 16, 2005

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 16, 2005 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs February 16, 2005 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. KENNETH HAYES Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 97-C-1735 Steve

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2007

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2007 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs June 19, 2007 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. ANTHONY TYRONE ROBERTSON Appeal from the Circuit Court for Montgomery County No. 40000047

More information

IN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 15A PC-2889 STATE S BRIEF OF APPELLEE

IN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 15A PC-2889 STATE S BRIEF OF APPELLEE IN THE INDIANA COURT OF APPEALS No. 15A04-1712-PC-2889 DANIEL BREWINGTON, Appellant-Petitioner, v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee-Respondent. Appeal from the Dearborn Superior Court 2, No. 15D02-1702-PC-3,

More information

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS KARI E. YONKERS, Petitioner-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED November 10, 2015 v No. 322462 Ingham Circuit Court MICHIGAN COMMISSION ON LAW LC No. 13-000735-AA ENFORCEMENT STANDARDS,

More information

NO IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

NO IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I NO. 29921 IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I STATE OF HAWAI'I, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ALAN KALAI FILOTEO, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE FAMILY COURT OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT

More information

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 MAURICE MARKELL FELDER STATE OF MARYLAND

UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No September Term, 2015 MAURICE MARKELL FELDER STATE OF MARYLAND UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 0273 September Term, 2015 MAURICE MARKELL FELDER v. STATE OF MARYLAND Kehoe, Leahy, Davis, Arrie W. (Retired, Specially Assigned), JJ. Opinion

More information

Criminal Case Study 1, Part 1

Criminal Case Study 1, Part 1 http://njep-ipsacourse.org/s5/s5-1.php 1 of 2 6/15/2012 1:21 PM 667 in Main Index: Page 1 of 8 Ronald Perry is on trial for sexual assault in the third degree, assault in the second degree, trespass, harassment

More information

COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE PORTER WILLIAMS, ) ) Petitioner/Appellant, ) Appeal No. ) 01-A-01-9604-CH-00177 v. ) ) Davidson Chancery REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL ) No. 94-1089-I COMMISSION FOR THE ) STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) Respondent/Appellee.

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE MARCH 1998 SESSION

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE MARCH 1998 SESSION IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE MARCH 1998 SESSION FILED June 26, 1998 Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk STATE OF TENNESSEE, ) ) C.C.A. NO. 03C01-9708-CR-00320 Appellee,

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs March 1, 2005

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs March 1, 2005 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON Assigned on Briefs March 1, 2005 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. MACK T. TRANSOU Appeal from the Circuit Court for Madison County No. 02-359 Roy B. Morgan,

More information

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 29,423. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY Daniel Viramontes, District Judge

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 29,423. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LUNA COUNTY Daniel Viramontes, District Judge 0 0 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that

More information

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING October Term, A.D. 2016 In the Matter of Amendments to ) the Rules Governing the Commission on ) Judicial Conduct and Ethics ) ORDER AMENDING THE RULES GOVERNING

More information

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 13, 2009

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 13, 2009 IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs January 13, 2009 STATE OF TENNESSEE v. BRANDON D. THOMAS Appeal from the Circuit Court for Warren County No. M-9973 Larry B.

More information

STATE V. SALAZAR, 1997-NMCA-043, 123 N.M. 347, 940 P.2d 195 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEE MIKE SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.

STATE V. SALAZAR, 1997-NMCA-043, 123 N.M. 347, 940 P.2d 195 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEE MIKE SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant. 1 STATE V. SALAZAR, 1997-NMCA-043, 123 N.M. 347, 940 P.2d 195 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEE MIKE SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 16,977 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 1997-NMCA-043,

More information